Sturgis 2020 Yay or Nay?

In reply to No Time :

For my state, the distribution of deaths has changed very little over time, but the total cases have skyrocketed among younger demographics since we reopened. For quite awhile, the 50-59 age group was the largest percentage, and those under 30 were a very small percentage. *Should note that testing has become more accessible to anybody during that time as well, so young people that might have minor or no symptoms can now get tested and be counted whereas that wasn't the case originally.

In reply to STM317 :

I appreciate you posting the info. 

It would be better to end the data prior to August; some states like Nebraska are so low on testing kits their drive-throughs are turning people away if they cannot prove direct contact. Shouldn't be much more than a week before the numbers are accurate tho.

So far, COVID has taken 4 times the people from us that the yearly flu typically does. The real concern for our hospitals- the deep nitty-gritty stuff- is that the virus rips the lung up pretty bad which heavily increases the patient's oxygen needs; most of our "COVID Recovery" patients are starting at 15 liters O2 vapotherm/non-rebreather, which is the highest concentrations you can go for awake persons. With all these oxygen needs there's fear that we will outstrip supply (our facility requires it to be tanked in, some hospitals can manufacture their own from atmo) and that's not even getting to COVIDs virulence and if those patients have to be moved to other rooms and floors; that's why those hospitals I spoke of went into overflow.

Looking at any of this data, we need to remember a few things:

• This is not a vacuum, and it is complicated to compare Time A vs Time B, or even different geographic locations.
• We're seeing more people not whining about masks and actually wearing them (anecdotal based on what I see) than we were early in this, and other than the RNC and Sturgis, the super-spreader events are mostly limited to low risk populations (college kid parties, protestors - a majority of whom appear to be wearing masks).
• On the masks, it is pretty well documented that it has a two-fold effect: It lowers your chances of catching it and spreading it, and if you do catch it, they lower your viral load which means that you don't get nearly as sick. So we'll see less cases, and among the cases, less deaths. 
• We're better at treating it now than we were earlier, although we still do not have a silver bullet 

I've got other comments here, but I don't know how to keep politics out of them so I'll refrain from sharing other than to say it is pretty embarrassing to be where we are right now, as we easily could have been through the woods or nearly through the woods. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to eastsideTim :

Thank you for this work. I have a feeling, as always , it's more complicated than raw data. I appreciate you putting in the effort on this. 
 

I have a feeling the initial image I had was manipulated in a manner to get the desired results, which is what I wanted to know. 

You’re welcome.  I think despite any differences we have in opinion, it’s important to make sure everyone has access to the best quality data possible.  Intentional and unintentional manipulation is no good.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

 

• On the masks, it is pretty well documented that it has a two-fold effect: It lowers your chances of catching it and spreading it, and if you do catch it, they lower your viral load which means that you don't get nearly as sick. So we'll see less cases, and among the cases, less deaths. 

I really expected to see a noticeable decrease in pretty much all metrics when my state began their mask mandate on July 27, but nothing has really changed since the mandate went into effect. I'm not saying that it's not worthwhile, but I'm not seeing much of an improvement in the metrics:

Blue line is roughly when the mask mandate went into effect

The drop in positivity in late August is due to a change in reporting where they went from reporting data for all cumulative tests, to reporting data for unique individuals to remove shifting data from people that might be tested frequently. Other than that, we're almost 6 weeks in, and not seeing much if any change after the mask mandate. Schools have reopened in many places during that time, so that could impact the data I suppose but it would be unusual to have an increase from schools perfectly offset any decrease from the mask mandate in all of the categories at the same rate.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

 

• We're seeing more people not whining about masks and actually wearing them (anecdotal based on what I see) than we were early in this, and other than the RNC and Sturgis, the super-spreader events are mostly limited to low risk populations (college kid parties, protestors - a majority of whom appear to be wearing masks

I'm going to say from my fly and drive back from Seattle and recent trips to places outside Chicago Metropolitan Area that this isn't the case.  I've been to places less than an hour outside of the city where I have been subject to passive aggressive behavior for wearing a mask in compliance with the CDC guidelines.

Just for comparison, this is a screen shot from the Georgia DPH page today. We are finally trending downward, just lately falling under 2000 new cases per day. 

We have not had a statewide mask requirement and our governor's earlier attempts to prevent anyone from having a mask ordinance are well documented. The decrease didn't begin until roughly 2-3 weeks after major national chains like Wal-Mart and Kroger began requiring them. In places like restaurants and bars there is little mask use and many people are still aggressively anti-mask. But maybe we're on the down hill now?

As mentioned elsewhere, the 18-29 age group is nearly double any other for total cases. You can see the info on the page linked above.

EDIT: it's a little suspect how closely all of our curves mimic the national ones listed on the previous page. 

STM, not enough data or time to really make that determination based on that data. Too much uncontrolled pieces - i.e., was it enforced, was it followed, where was it not enforced, etc. For instance, right after they instituted the mask mandate, my uncle in Indiana went to church for the first time since March. I think this was early August? He walked out when he counted 32 people without masks, singing. That is just an anecdote, but the anecdote tells me enough that we need better data than what you've presented before we can make a conclusion one way or another. 

Here is a study, unpublished as of yet, from a MIT Economist I follow. Very difficult to understand, as it is written in Statistics. I'm currently about 1/3 of the way through it and its taken me a week, but it is basically showing that masks would have resulted in a lot less deaths and cases.

Our counterfactual experiments suggest that nationally mandating face masks for employees on April 1st could have reduced the growth rate of cases and deaths by more than 10 percentage points in late April, and could have led to as much as 17 to 55 percent less deaths nationally by the end of May, which roughly translates into 17 to 55 thousand saved lives.

Cooter said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

 

• We're seeing more people not whining about masks and actually wearing them (anecdotal based on what I see) than we were early in this, and other than the RNC and Sturgis, the super-spreader events are mostly limited to low risk populations (college kid parties, protestors - a majority of whom appear to be wearing masks

I'm going to say from my fly and drive back from Seattle and recent trips to places outside Chicago Metropolitan Area that this isn't the case.  I've been to places less than an hour outside of the city where I have been subject to passive aggressive behavior for wearing a mask compliance with the CDC guidelines.

That is disappointing. Although now that I think about it, it makes sense. I live in a generally mask-friendly area, and when I've visited outside of here, it has been only to the outdoors or to WalMart or Menards where they're requiring masks.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Cooter said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

 

• We're seeing more people not whining about masks and actually wearing them (anecdotal based on what I see) than we were early in this, and other than the RNC and Sturgis, the super-spreader events are mostly limited to low risk populations (college kid parties, protestors - a majority of whom appear to be wearing masks

I'm going to say from my fly and drive back from Seattle and recent trips to places outside Chicago Metropolitan Area that this isn't the case.  I've been to places less than an hour outside of the city where I have been subject to passive aggressive behavior for wearing a mask compliance with the CDC guidelines.

That is disappointing. Although now that I think about it, it makes sense. I live in a generally mask-friendly area, and when I've visited outside of here, it has been only to the outdoors or to WalMart or Menards where they're requiring masks.

My nephew drove from Oregon to Buffalo New York two weeks ago. He said there were areas (Idaho, Montana) where they were yelled at for wearing masks and one restaurant in particular wouldn't seat them until they took them off. 

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Cooter said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

 

• We're seeing more people not whining about masks and actually wearing them (anecdotal based on what I see) than we were early in this, and other than the RNC and Sturgis, the super-spreader events are mostly limited to low risk populations (college kid parties, protestors - a majority of whom appear to be wearing masks

I'm going to say from my fly and drive back from Seattle and recent trips to places outside Chicago Metropolitan Area that this isn't the case.  I've been to places less than an hour outside of the city where I have been subject to passive aggressive behavior for wearing a mask compliance with the CDC guidelines.

That is disappointing. Although now that I think about it, it makes sense. I live in a generally mask-friendly area, and when I've visited outside of here, it has been only to the outdoors or to WalMart or Menards where they're requiring masks.

I was pretty ashamed for humanity.  My wife and I went to an auction where it was stated that they would be following all the CDC guidelines, and less than 1/10 of the participants were wearing masks.  It was outside, so we figured we could just stay socially distant.  But people would purposely stand near my wife, no matter where she stood.  And they would go out of their way to walk directly toward her when walking past, nearly brushing up against her.

Meanwhile, my neighbor across the street who told me was on the same page as me about this just had a retirement party.
A big drunken multi-hour party.    I only saw two people wearing masks.  And they were in their '70s.  Wouldn't you wear a mask, simply for their benefit??

Trent (Generally supportive dude) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Cooter said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

 

• We're seeing more people not whining about masks and actually wearing them (anecdotal based on what I see) than we were early in this, and other than the RNC and Sturgis, the super-spreader events are mostly limited to low risk populations (college kid parties, protestors - a majority of whom appear to be wearing masks

I'm going to say from my fly and drive back from Seattle and recent trips to places outside Chicago Metropolitan Area that this isn't the case.  I've been to places less than an hour outside of the city where I have been subject to passive aggressive behavior for wearing a mask compliance with the CDC guidelines.

That is disappointing. Although now that I think about it, it makes sense. I live in a generally mask-friendly area, and when I've visited outside of here, it has been only to the outdoors or to WalMart or Menards where they're requiring masks.

My nephew drove from Oregon to Buffalo New York two weeks ago. He said there were areas (Idaho, Montana) where they were yelled at for wearing masks and one restaurant in particular wouldn't seat them until they took them off. 

I was lucky with my trip, as the person I was driving for was a GRMer and had a motorhome that we stayed in.  No restaurants while on the road.  .

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

STM, not enough data or time to really make that determination based on that data. Too much uncontrolled pieces - i.e., was it enforced, was it followed, where was it not enforced, etc. For instance, right after they instituted the mask mandate, my uncle in Indiana went to church for the first time since March. I think this was early August? He walked out when he counted 32 people without masks, singing. That is just an anecdote, but the anecdote tells me enough that we need better data than what you've presented before we can make a conclusion one way or another.

That's fair. I'd say that mask usage is up because large retailers and grocers started requiring masks right around the time that the state mandate went into effect. The grocery was maybe 50% mask usage before the mandate and nearly 100% now for example. Same with Lowes, etc. Outside of  those required places, I'd say mask wearing has been pretty steady before and after the mandate and varies by location. The more rural/sparsely populated an area is, the fewer masks you see in public. That's been true throughout in my experience.

I just think that for the data to be the same in all of the categories shown before/after the mandates, something has to be "off". Maybe it's our understanding of the timeline related to this virus, and it takes weeks for symptoms to show up? But there's a bunch of evidence that suggests otherwise too.

If public contacts are increasing (schools reopening, churches meeting, protests, etc) but the data is basically flat, that would mean that the mask mandate has reduced cases, positivity, hospitalizations and deaths the perfect amount to be perfectly offset by increased public exposure. That seems unlikely to me. Possible, but man, what are the odds? Feels like we're missing something to me, or something about our understanding of the virus is no longer applicable.

In reply to Cooter :

The hardest thing about this event has been that it's finally broken my faith in humanity. The unwillingness to suffer mild inconvenience on the chance that it might help prevent someone else's sickness just floors me. Hell, maybe the masks don't work - but if there's even a chance, isn't it worth taking? 

After 45 years of believing that somewhere, deep down, humans would at least be basically decent to each other, this is what stole that light from me. I can't help but feel we well deserve whatever we get from this as a whole. 

Just to put things in a bit of perspective, about "doing it right".   I have a very strong suspicion that there is a certain inevitability to this thing in some cases, many people will just tire of having to deal with it (adding politics unnecessarily certainly makes it much worse).  I am sure it is not talked about it on the US centric news, but some of the European countries are having a very bad time right now, in fact, almost worse than they have ever been and the there is Japan (? no idea why, they are very comfortable with masks, maybe vacations also?).  The US, trend wise, is doing much better.

I am pretty certain this has a lot to do with August being vacation time in most of Europe and I know Spain is a huge destination for that.  So, likely very similar to the Sturgis effect.  It does seem to (VERY anecdotally) indicate that moving around is a prime issue (not like we didn't know that of course).

I have a lot I'd love to say about peoples indignation about those of us tired of wearing a mask 9 hours a day every day etc. It's not worth it. berkeley it. I'll just be the bad guy. I'm ok with it by now. 

I did not intend to turn this into another whine fest or "think of hte children" etc. I just wanted someone that had the time to find those numbers for me to see if what I had found posted was accurate or not. Personally, berkeley the masks. berkeley the lock down. berkeley the protests. berkeley the riots. berkeley the election. berkeley the govt. berkeley everyone about now. Not you though... you're cool. 

Cooter said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

 

• We're seeing more people not whining about masks and actually wearing them (anecdotal based on what I see) than we were early in this, and other than the RNC and Sturgis, the super-spreader events are mostly limited to low risk populations (college kid parties, protestors - a majority of whom appear to be wearing masks

I'm going to say from my fly and drive back from Seattle and recent trips to places outside Chicago Metropolitan Area that this isn't the case.  I've been to places less than an hour outside of the city where I have been subject to passive aggressive behavior for wearing a mask in compliance with the CDC guidelines.

That's an interesting point. I live in about the most conservative of conservative places, but I haven't encountered any ill will towards people wearing masks. I guess it's because they are super afraid of my 5'7" frame :)

I see some people wearing, some people not, and no one seems to care about either. 

*just to clarify, myself and my lady have both been wearing masks in any situation that is deemed appropriate/necessary.

I really don't understand what the big deal is about wearing a mask.  I wear one everyday at work, practically all day long and have for 25 years. 

That this act (that's simple and easy to do) has become such a flash point and politicized blows me away.

*edited because I made it sound like I didn't wear a mask at work.  I do, everyday and work.  What I meant is that I wear a mask almost every day *of the week* while at work...

STM317 said:

I just think that for the data to be the same in all of the categories shown before/after the mandates, something has to be "off". Maybe it's our understanding of the timeline related to this virus, and it takes weeks for symptoms to show up? But there's a bunch of evidence that suggests otherwise too.

If public contacts are increasing (schools reopening, churches meeting, protests, etc) but the data is basically flat, that would mean that the mask mandate has reduced cases, positivity, hospitalizations and deaths the perfect amount to be perfectly offset by increased public exposure. That seems unlikely to me. Possible, but man, what are the odds? Feels like we're missing something to me, or something about our understanding of the virus is no longer applicable.

I deleted some of you post from the quote to focus on one area. 

People are creatures of habit. We've been living with recommendations for masks, social distancing, hand washing, and remote work.  I would guess the mask mandate are  probably not making much of a difference in the percentage of people wearing masks.  

People that are open to it have probably been wearing masks and social distancing for months. The people that refused to wear a mask before the mandates are probably still refusing to wear one in most or all situations. 
 

I think the missing info is the compliance numbers for masks before and after the mandates. 
 

To reinforce the "doing it right" issue, and a good example of "doesn't matter what you restrict, people will do things".   I give you Peru, which has been in heavy lock down since March:

This is a good article on it, and the likely reasons.  It's a bit out of date, the charts do not show the second rise:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53150808

The quick summary of likely reason for this obvious fail (most of these don't apply much to the US):

- Markets

- Informal Economy

- Banks

- (lack of) Social Distancing

docwyte said:

I really don't understand what the big deal is about wearing a mask.  I wear one almost everyday at work, practically all day long and have for 25 years. 

That this act (that's simple and easy to do) has become such a flash point and politicized blows me away.

I'm with you 100%.
 

No Time said:

STM317 said:

I just think that for the data to be the same in all of the categories shown before/after the mandates, something has to be "off". Maybe it's our understanding of the timeline related to this virus, and it takes weeks for symptoms to show up? But there's a bunch of evidence that suggests otherwise too.

If public contacts are increasing (schools reopening, churches meeting, protests, etc) but the data is basically flat, that would mean that the mask mandate has reduced cases, positivity, hospitalizations and deaths the perfect amount to be perfectly offset by increased public exposure. That seems unlikely to me. Possible, but man, what are the odds? Feels like we're missing something to me, or something about our understanding of the virus is no longer applicable.

I deleted some of you post from the quote to focus on one area. 

People are creatures of habit. We've been living with recommendations for masks, social distancing, hand washing, and remote work.  I would guess the mask mandate are  probably not making much of a difference in the percentage of people wearing masks.  

People that are open to it have probably been wearing masks and social distancing for months. The people that refused to wear a mask before the mandates are probably still refusing to wear one in most or all situations. 
 

I think the missing info is the compliance numbers for masks before and after the mandates. 
 

Mask usage is way up in the retail establishments that I've been in. It's required for entry to these places now. At least 95% compliance in these retailers now whereas it was more like 50% a couple months ago. Even if there were no other changes in mask usage, and everybody is either wearing or not wearing masks at the same rate they were before the mandate when outside of these retailers, that's still an increase in mask usage.

In reply to STM317 :

True that would be an increase in overall compliance. 

Just thinking out loud...

Maybe it's like herd immunity, having a high enough percentage of people wear masks is sufficient to slow the spread? Then those retailers may have already had high enough compliance among shoppers to have their revised policies show no impact. 

I hope the leather daddy cosplay was worth it for this guy. Rip. 
 

https://kstp.com/coronavirus/minnesota-man-dies-after-attending-sturgis-motorcycle-rally-testing-positive-for-covid-19/5849065/